CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 6 October 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55657/09 Ahmet ÇELEBI against Turkey lodged on 18 September 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns compensation proceedings brought by the applicant against his former employer, a private company, as a consequence of a work accident he suffered in 1996. In the first set of proceedings, the domestic court took out an expert medical opinion in order to assess whether the applicant suffered from incapacity to work. The medical report indicated that whilst the applicant did not suffer from any permanent damage, his medical condition could be reassessed if new symptoms arose. On the basis of this report, the domestic court dismissed the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage. This judgment became final on 14 June 2004. The same year the applicant started suffering from pain and other symptoms and brought fresh proceedings against his former employer seeking compensation for lost earnings in the amount of 23,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 12,600 euros (EUR) at the material time). At the time of lodging his claim with the domestic court, he reserved his right to increase his claim in due course. During the proceedings, the court sought two medical expert opinions which established, on 24 August and 25 October 2007, respectively, that the applicant had permanently lost 36% of his capacity to work as a result of the work accident. On 1 April 2008 the court took out another expert report with a view to assessing the amount of compensation that could be claimed by the applicant. That report established the amount of pecuniary damage to be 124,805   TRY (approximately 60,900 euros (EUR) at the material time). On 18   April 2008 the applicant increased the amount of his claim in the light of this final expert report. The defendant party raised a plea of limitation arguing that the revised part of the applicant’s claim was lodged outside of the ten-year limitation period. On 29 April 2008 the domestic court granted the applicant his initial claim but dismissed the remainder of his claims on the basis of the ten-year limitation period which had started to run from the date of the accident. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he has been denied of his right to a fair trial and access to court on account of the domestic courts’ dismissal of his additional claims for compensation as being out of time. In this connection, the applicant argued that his injuries had progressed over time and the assessment of their extent had only come to light in 2008 during the second set of proceedings and that therefore the limitation period should start to run from that date. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the dismissal of the applicant’s additional compensation claim by the domestic courts as being out of time violate the applicant’s right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Eşim v. Turkey , no.   59601/09, §§ 16-27, 17 September 2013)?